RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 20 charted matches · 2024–2025

Nishesh Basavareddy

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 66.2% ±3.5 raw 66.0% · tour 63.4% · 1,273 points
Return points won 39.0% ±3.7 raw 39.2% · tour 36.6% · 1,323 points

Serve and return points won, refitted against every opponent at once so a record built on weak or strong opposition is put on the same scale. Career, all surfaces, with a 90% margin. Raw is the plain share of points won.

Value per 100 shots

Direction choice +0.26 ±0.08 better than 97% of ATP · raw +0.27
Shot selection +0.26 ±0.11 better than 77% of ATP · raw +0.27
Execution +0.46 ±0.64 better than 83% of ATP · raw +0.69
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 20 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.06 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 98% of ATP

Points gained per 100 shots compared with an average tour player in the same position, adjusted for the strength of the opponents faced, with a 90% margin (shots clustered by match). Raw is before the opponent adjustment. Built on 6,817 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Nishesh Basavareddy goes on to win after each option in the positions they face most often, shrunk toward tour average when the sample is small. Showing the 8 most-used options; teal marks the best one with at least 30 shots.

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 368 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 48.3%±5.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 17% 47.9%±9.0 43.7%
BH down the line 14% 45.5%±9.7 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 45.1%±12.8 42.5%
BH slice down the line 4% 36.5%±13.6 37.1%
BH slice through the middle 3% 40.1%±14.7 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 351 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 49.2%±5.7 46.6%
FH down the line 21% 52.6%±8.5 44.7%
FH through the middle 19% 42.4%±8.7 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 4% 36.9%±13.4 24.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 313 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 60.5%±7.5 52.7%
BH crosscourt 20% 56.4%±9.0 49.1%
FH down the line 16% 49.7%±9.8 51.5%
FH through the middle 11% 53.5%±11.1 47.0%
BH through the middle 9% 47.7%±11.7 46.8%
BH down the line 6% 42.7%±13.0 48.3%
BH crosscourt + approach 3% 68.5%±14.0 67.7%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 269 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 51.1%±6.9 48.0%
BH through the middle 14% 47.1%±10.7 43.8%
BH down the line 14% 45.3%±10.8 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 14% 44.6%±10.8 42.1%
BH slice down the line 6% 34.7%±13.2 35.8%
BH slice through the middle 5% 33.4%±13.5 35.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +8 How much less varied Nishesh Basavareddy's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 84 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 68% ▲ 76% / 73%
Body 10% 0% ▼ 69% / 63%
T 37% 32% 78% / 75%

644 normal · 22 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 51% 45% 76% / 73%
Body 8% 8% 60% / 63%
T 41% 47% 72% / 72%

538 normal · 62 break-point 1st serves

Is the serve mix in equilibrium?

Game theory says a well-mixed server wins equally often with every direction they use. If one direction wins more, it's underused and points are being left behind. This is the minimax test Walker and Wooders ran on Wimbledon finals, applied to every charted first serve. Win rates include faults. "Optimal" allows for returners reading a habit. No measurable response (−0.05 ± 0.15 points per 100 serves for every 10 points of habitual usage), measured from ATP servers whose mix drifted between matches. Shifts stay within the range servers' habits actually vary, the only range that response was measured over.

Deuce court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 68.7%±3.9 n=355 66% ▲
Body10% 65.6%±8.0 n=66 0% ▼
T37% 65.0%±4.7 n=245 34% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.53).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide50% 66.3%±4.3 n=300 63% ▲
Body8% 59.8%±9.1 n=48 0% ▼
T42% 65.3%±4.7 n=252 37% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.38).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.61 points per 100 first serves What the optimal mix would win over the current one, both courts. More exploitable than 100% of ATP servers. Tested on matches they weren't fitted on, ATP mixes picked this way win 0.33 per 100 first serves on average.

Repeating the previous direction to the same court: −0.4±4.0 points per 100 against switching. Negative means returners read repeats. Tour-wide, repeating costs women about 0.4 points per 100 and costs men nothing, so men's returners don't measurably anticipate direction. (443 repeats, 783 switches.)

Return by serve direction

Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 63 39% +1.8±8.3
1stAd courtT 156 28% +0.1±5.4
1stAd courtWide 187 26% −1.3±4.9
1stDeuce courtBody 80 39% +2.4±7.7
1stDeuce courtT 154 31% +6.2±5.6
1stDeuce courtWide 197 28% +0.6±4.9
2ndAd courtBody 96 52% +2.9±7.3
2ndAd courtT 48 52% +3.0±9.3
2ndAd courtWide 75 49% +0.7±8.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 115 57% +8.0±6.8
2ndDeuce courtT 67 58% +7.9±8.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 78 50% +2.3±7.9

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Nishesh Basavareddy's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 73% · +2.8±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 71% · +0.2±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.2% · won 66% · −4.9±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 66% · −4.8±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 65% · −5.5±10.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 5.3% · won 57% · +11.4±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.9% · won 52% · +6.7±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.7% · won 51% · +5.8±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.6% · won 49% · +3.2±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 46% · +0.9±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.5% · won 57% · +8.2±7.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 59% · +10.2±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.3% · won 53% · +4.0±7.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.3% · won 53% · +4.0±7.1 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 57% · +7.7±10.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Nishesh Basavareddy wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 59% · +7.9±8.3 vs own baseline · +13.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alex Michelsen (4/8), Luca Van Assche (3/6)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 57% · +5.6±8.9 vs own baseline · +6.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gael Monfils (2/7), Liam Draxl (5/8)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 56% · +4.8±8.8 vs own baseline · +11.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Martin Borisiouk (2/6), Karue Sell (4/8)
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 60% · +8.7±12.3 vs own baseline · +26.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 56% · +4.0±10.5 vs own baseline · +8.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (3/6)
  6. T serve → FH down the line return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 57% · +5.7±12.9 vs own baseline · +15.7 vs tour on the same sequence

Strengths and vulnerabilities

Value per 100 shots compared with the average player hitting (strengths) or facing (vulnerabilities) the same shot. Only shot types seen at least 120 times.

Hurts opponents most with

BH to their backhand · serve +1+3.4234
BH to their forehand · rally+3.1203
FH to the middle · rally+2.8190
BH to their backhand · rally+2.5491
BH to their backhand · return +1+2.3160

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−2.4259
FH to their backhand · rally−1.6381
BH to their backhand · rally−1.1377
FH to the middle · rally−1.0247
BH to the middle · rally−0.9298

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.19, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.94, Pedro Martinez +1.69, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.67, Casper Ruud +1.67

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +2.65, Fabian Marozsan +2.62, Pedro Martinez +2.57, Alexander Shevchenko +2.50, Roberto Carballes Baena +2.38

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juncheng Shang, Pedro Martinez, Learner Tien, Miomir Kecmanovic, Casper Ruud

Tactical fingerprint

Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the ATP average, in standard deviations.

Wide serves · deuce53%
Drop shots / shot2.2%
Avg rally length4.3
T serves · ad42%
Chipped returns17%
Points at net12%
Deep returns27%
Wide serves · ad50%
1st serve in61%
Point-ending shots22.7%
BH down the line19%
Backhand slice16%
Serve & volley1%
Forehand share49%
FH down the line27%
Unforced errors / shot7.3%
T serves · deuce37%
Through the middle19%
Run-around forehands4%

Plays most like

  1. Richard Gasquet 2002–2025 plan v
  2. Andy Murray 2005–2024 plan v
  3. Karue Sell 2024–2025 plan v
  4. Novak Djokovic 2005–2026 plan v
  5. Frances Tiafoe 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Andre Agassi 1988–2006 plan v
  7. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v
  8. Daniil Medvedev 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Andre Agassi 1988–2006
  2. David Nalbandian 2002–2012
  3. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002

Charted matches